Posted by Tony Morgan on 01/01/07 12:28

In message <1167650577.440888.209960@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
Rexunrex@yahoo.com writes
>
>Neck & Red wrote:
>
>> Why would the consumer want to buy a new tiny monitor and video card when
>> he's got a 50" or bigger HDTV in his living room?
>
>Most people don't have these.
>
>> Oh, and HD-DVD blows away the picture quality of a movie theater.
>
>Really? So 1920 by 1080 pixels or 1280 by 720 pixels from HDDVD
>are larger than images that are 2048, 4096 or 8192 pixels wide?
>Where did you learn math, from George Bush?
>
And Neck & Red seem to have the same clue as George Bush.

My 17" 1920x1200 laptop screen viewed from between 2 and 3 feet looks
(subject to source) far better than a 50" wall-mounted TV viewed from
between 12 and 20 feet.

The general public has been well and truly conned by the marketing men
with their TV sales line of "HD-Ready". Worse, many (most?), have been
coerced into paying top-dollar prices for HD-Ready TVs - when in a
couple of years (when HD media/broadcast becomes more universally and
readily available) because of economies of high-volume production
coupled with competitive pressures, the public will be paying a fraction
of today's prices.

Insofar as media is concerned, double the resolution means file-size
quadrupling - and AFAIK there's a finite amount of data that can be held
on a DVD, so where will we be going? Two/ three DVD disks per movie?

Digital broadcasting can ( and does) provide the bandwidth needed to
present HD content - but DVDs? - no way.

--
Tony Morgan

[Back to original message]